Date:         Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:05:52 +1300
Reply-To:     Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:      Re: Electrical pollution?
In-Reply-To:  <A704C7CA-610B-11D9-BEAB-000A959B3796@knology.net>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

>I live in the Tennessee River Valley where almost all the power comes
>from Hydroelectricity. Where exactly should I be looking for said
>pollution?
>
>Jim
>>>>
>>
>>>Insane. Electric cars merely shift the source of pollution to the
>>>powerplants which generate the power  needed to recharge the car's
>>>batteries.

Hydropower has its own problems... countryside drowned by artificial
lake; silting eventually fills lake, rendering it useless when silt
reaches surface level; dam may well eventually break during
earthquake (nowhere is safe from quakes), with resultant destruction
downstream.

>We used to swim all thru the winter near a discharge port of a power plant
>on Melton Hill Reservoir. Nice and comfy. People driving by on a nearby road
>apparently thought we were nuts and would honk to let us know it.
>The fish liked it too...

A problem with any thermal generation (fired or atomic) is hot water
released into the watershed... which can easily kill off native life
unablwe to cope with the temperatures... however the water soon cools
to background temperatures, so this is perhaps not a big worry.

>Since all energy of every form on this planet originates from the sun,
>the ultimate energy solution is to emulate some form of solar energy.
>That means atomic energy.


No, it means NUCLEAR (fusion) energy, which creates only waste heat,
but no secondary induced radioactivity ie reaction stops, so does
radioactivity. We do not have fusion powerplants, nor are we loikely
to in the forseeable future, unless the Japanese make a major
breakthrough in containment and ignition.... that is, they come up
with ones that WORK.

>
>Around 1986 or so, an article appeared in (I think) Popular Science
>Magazine about backyard atomic power plants that ever home could have,
>These were completely sealed, self contained units that would completely
>power a home for all it's needs plus extra power to be fed back to the
>public power grid.

Dreams. Minifusion plants, fine... but not fission, please! Too much
scope for disaster, due to long-term radioactivity if the fission
plant leaks.

>Such a home power plant was totally adequate to
>supply charging power for electric cars. These power units could run a
>single home for 20 years before having to deal with spent fuel cells. No
>unit costs were given as I recall, but the feasibility of such units was
>brought fourth as well as the expression of the availability of the
>technology. It was very interesting to note that I was never able to
read anything more about this subject anywhere.

In theory fusion reactors s could be made small enough to
conveniently power a car, not just to charge an electric-only one...
so we'd have fusion-electric cars. Potentially very FAST ones.

>Such units would solve the oil dependency which is a finite supply.

No, because most plastics also come from oil... or coal... which is
why we need to get out into space, to mine carbon compounds in the
asteroids. And we need to get out there in force and FAST.

>While France is enjoying it's electric power. It is still using oil.
>It's vehicles use oil for energy. BUT, France has the capacity in place
>now to switch over to alternative fuels. WE don't.

THIS mindless country New Zealand has its collective head way up its
butt. "Nuclear-free" crap. WE are running into power problems, ands
the idea is to put more & more dams in. Insane, especially in a
geologically-active country where EVERY major valley is created by
erosion ALONG AN ACTIVE LARGE FAULT. Atomic power is the only way to
go... when will the greenies etc get real?

>  Many factors -
>inadequate birth control (Mexico is largely a Catholic nation - and
>birth control is anathema to them) so the population continues to
>increase... So they flood into this country, increasing the
>demand on our services, resources, etc, and reducing our quality of life
>in the process.

And, being Catholic, continuing to breed like bacteria.

>the hoards from Mexico

hordes

>are doing the same to the rest of this
>country. I don't like the fact that my government forces me to pay taxes
>- take money from me that would otherwise go to supporting my own
>family- and willingly gives it over to programs to support hoards of
>foreigners fleeing their land because things are so bad there.

Agreed... and I'm not even in the US. Samoans, Indians etc are doing
the same here.

>It is insane to continue down the same path when
>destruction is at the end of the path.

This is all population-drive. Population levels AS THEY ARE are
utterly unsustainable. Let alone the continuing growth, especially in
SEAsia. Hard though it seems to say, what's objectively needed is a
pandemic or two.

>The ultimate end of the global
>warming trend - if it continues to the point of melting the polar ice
>caps - it a total alteration of the worlds shorelines and agriculture
>among other things, and that will result in famine of unbelievable
>scale, and then to wars. .

Global warming and cooling are constantly occurring, as the
geological record shows. Nothing new here, and climates are never
really anything like stable. It is quite possible that, if the
current possible warming is real, then if we continue cutting back on
production of greenhouse gases etc, we might cause a COOLING. Such
events often are accompanied by glaciations... and a major glaciation
is infinitely worse than rising sealevel.

>So, we had better get a grip, and find better
>ways, and to hell with corporate profits. But a warning. Those whose
>profits are made on the investments is such things as the oil industry -
>are insulated for a time, and only for a time - from the misery that
>will accompany the destruction of the environment. Eventually they to,
>will pay a price for their greed. They can afford less profits for the
>purpose of helping the environment for the sake of us all. They can also
>afford less profits for equity of the people in the resources.
>
>It is amazing how few people today - especially in the USA - who have
>any concept of the fact that our very existence is tied directly and
>indirectly to plant life - both oceanic and land. And if the
>environmental destruction does not come to a halt, we as a species are
>in deep do-do. If we ever have a major break in the food chain, then we
>are going to have a catastrophe that will make the asteroid destruction
>of the dinosaurs look like a picnic.

Amen.

>Safe, environmentally friendly, atomic power is ultimately the answer.
>
>Everyone gets really amped up over the ideal of atomic power or energy.
>Too dangerous they say. Hmmm. I had a heated debate with my banker one
>day over something I wanted to do. He pointedly told me he had been
>informed that the material I wanted to use in my project was "dangerous"
>and he couldn't loan with that condition. I was equally pointed, as
>asked him if he would deliberately place his family in the presence of a
>dangerous substance that has killed people, injured people, burned down
>houses, etc. He replied "Of course not". I said "Of course you do. You
>have natural gas in your home, and it has burned down more homes and
>burned and killed more people than I can count, yet you expose your
>family to it daily.!!" The point was conceded. I also said "You
>transport your family in your car which tank is filled with gasoline,
>and highly flammable liquid, capable of exploding!" And my point was
>conceded. I also said the many things are dangerous, but highly useful
>when individuals are properly trained and the material properly handled
>and utilized. Natural gas, Propane, Chlorine gas, Gasoline, etc, etc,
>etc, etc. So to can atomic energy.

Amen again...